I'll keep it short 'n sweet. The 4006 has been out of production for a long while-- Any rumors of switching to anything else? What do you qual with in the academy? What was/were the distance/distances you qualified at? Where was your academy or does that differ from city to city? Do you still allow ride-alongs even though CHP hasn't hired in years?

I'll keep it short 'n sweet. The 4006 has been out of production for a long while-- Any rumors of switching to anything else? What do you qual with in the academy? What was/were the distance/distances you qualified at? Where was your academy or does that differ from city to city? Do you still allow ride-alongs even though CHP hasn't hired in years?

Thank you in advance.

I can answer some of these...Have not heard of any plans to update the 4006 TSW. I'm not a fan and would love a modern pistol with higher capacity, but nothing doing there.

You will qualify with that pistol. It will be issued to you half way through the academy & it will be the same pistol you carry on the road if you are fortunate enough to graduate.

There is only one CHP academy & it is in Sacramento. It is a full time academy (nights & weekends) and it is 6+ months long.

We do give ride-alongs, but lately they've been restricted to folks in the application process only. Contact Your local recruiter (can find their info on the ca.gov website).

You will hear lots of rumors like this all the time for all kinds of different departments. Sometimes they are true, but usually they are not. Guns can be serviced for an extremely long time. The military has ARs that have been in service since vietnam. The CHP could concievably make their existing weapons last a very long time should they choose to do so.

Departments routinely evaluate new guns, this more than anything leads to rumors of an upcoming change. Sometimes they actually plan on making a change, usually they are just going thru the motions in order to meet some legal requirment before continuing with their existing contracts - not possible on a discontinued weapon but you get my meaning. The procurement process for a State or Federal organziation is a nightmare, and they have to jump through hoops or they get sued. THey have to make it look like they are at least looking and giving gun companies a chance. They also occassionally will add a gun to their roster for use by a specialized unit. When they do the manufacturer of that gun natuarally wants to brag about that new relationship in the hopes it will boost sales. More often than not, the nature of that relationship gets exadurated. Pretty soon a 15 gun purchase for a swat team or bomb squad becomes a department wide change.

This is expecially true of the military, but I've heard these kinds of stories with all kinds of departments like the LAPD, CHP, and even local Sheriff departments before. Best not to consider it true until it actually happens.

I cannot tell you how many times I have read stories about how the military is replacing the M4 with this or that weapon system. Never ends up being true. Just some yahoo taking the testing process out of context, or looking at a small purchase for a specific unit and blowing it out of proportion. Most likely the story you heard is something along those lines.

CHP is still in the middle of their deal with S&W for almost 10K units of 4006 TSW. I doubt they'll be looking to replace them anytime soon since they got, in some cases, 15 years or more out of some of the initial series guns. The oldest of the most recent contract are at worst going on 5 years in service so they have plenty of road left. Kids going through the academy now are almost certainly getting issued a brand new gun that's been sitting on a shelf for a couple of years waiting for them.

Besides, S&W would be happy to fire up a line to make more 4006 TSW if CHP writes them a big enough check.

FWIW, State Parks piggy backed CHP for many years and bought 4006s for issue. They went to 100% M&P 40 last year and are very happy with them from what I am told. I doubt that would have any bearing on what CHP might someday do, but there you go.

__________________ -- Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun

Not a lawyer, just a former LEO proud to have served.

Quote:

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. -- James Madison

It's an interesting gun policy at CHP. Can only carry one on-duty gun but they have a pretty big list of off duty options.

Due to the passage of LEOSA, it is irrelevant what the CHP allows for off-duty carry. A qualified LEO can carry any semi auto firearm he wants off duty, regardless of agency policy.

Myth  Only LEOs with agency permission can carry off-duty under LEOSA.
 September 2007: Federal corrections officer prosecuted on disciplinary charges by the Bureau of Prisons for carrying a handgun off-duty without permission and for misusing his agency identification. Administrative Judge dismissed both charges. Court found that the officer did not need agency approval to carry under LEOSA. It also found that the officer only used the identification, but not to secure privileges unavailable to the general public. (Davis v. Dept of Justice, 2007 Merit System Protection Board Lexis 5609)
 Representative Scott proposed a provision that LEOSA shall not be construed to supersede or limit the rules, regulations, policies, or practices of any State or local law enforcement agency. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 11 yeas to 21 nays. (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong, 2nd Sess. 2004 p. 7)
 An officer trained only to use a firearm in a correctional setting but not trained to carry one on-duty, and not allowed to carry off-duty, is still covered by LEOSA if they meet all requirements of LEOSA. (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2004 p. 58)
 The protection provided by LEOSA is simply not reduced or eliminated because an otherwise qualified officer fails to obtain permission from his department to use the weapon; (People v. Drew Peterson)
 CA DOJ says, On-duty restrictions placed by the department appear to be permissible. Off-duty restrictions appear to be superceded by this Act. http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/leosiss.pdf

__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel

Due to the passage of LEOSA, it is irrelevant what the CHP allows for off-duty carry. A qualified LEO can carry any semi auto firearm he wants off duty, regardless of agency policy.

Myth  Only LEOs with agency permission can carry off-duty under LEOSA.
 September 2007: Federal corrections officer prosecuted on disciplinary charges by the Bureau of Prisons for carrying a handgun off-duty without permission and for misusing his agency identification. Administrative Judge dismissed both charges. Court found that the officer did not need agency approval to carry under LEOSA. It also found that the officer only used the identification, but not to secure privileges unavailable to the general public. (Davis v. Dept of Justice, 2007 Merit System Protection Board Lexis 5609)
 Representative Scott proposed a provision that LEOSA shall not be construed to supersede or limit the rules, regulations, policies, or practices of any State or local law enforcement agency. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 11 yeas to 21 nays. (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong, 2nd Sess. 2004 p. 7)
 An officer trained only to use a firearm in a correctional setting but not trained to carry one on-duty, and not allowed to carry off-duty, is still covered by LEOSA if they meet all requirements of LEOSA. (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2004 p. 58)
 The protection provided by LEOSA is simply not reduced or eliminated because an otherwise qualified officer fails to obtain permission from his department to use the weapon; (People v. Drew Peterson)
 CA DOJ says, On-duty restrictions placed by the department appear to be permissible. Off-duty restrictions appear to be superceded by this Act. http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/leosiss.pdf

My department asks we stick to our approved firearm list and take a class with that firearm.

No he/she didn't. He/she was issued the 4006 TSW at the academy that he/she graduated with. Cadets train with a 4006 TSW. There is no other handgun used by cadets or used by road patrol officers.

good thing I said "I believe" at the end of my sentence so I left room for being wrong, haha. I could have sworn he said either an M&P or a S&W that is specifically a CHP model.... must be mistooooken! My bad

btw: very correct of you to go "he/she". Don't often see that attention to detail on forums!

I could have sworn he said either an M&P or a S&W that is specifically a CHP model

And for the last several years the 4006TSW that CHP issues is specifically a CHP model, so in that sense you're not all that wrong. The 2006 contract guns are not standard 4006TSW internally, there are some minor differences that CHP ordered specifically.

My department asks we stick to our approved firearm list and take a class with that firearm.

They can ask and you can comply if you wish. But, you don't have to. LEOSA made it so you don't need agency permission to carry any semi auto firearm when you are off duty...whether they like it or not.

__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel

No he/she didn't. He/she was issued the 4006 TSW at the academy that he/she graduated with. Cadets train with a 4006 TSW. There is no other handgun used by cadets or used by road patrol officers.

The state has made him/her politically correct.

__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel

They can ask and you can comply if you wish. But, you don't have to. LEOSA made it so you don't need agency permission to carry any semi auto firearm when you are off duty...whether they like it or not.

This may be true, but the department may still take adverse action against you for doing so.

good thing I said "I believe" at the end of my sentence so I left room for being wrong, haha. I could have sworn he said either an M&P or a S&W that is specifically a CHP model.... must be mistooooken! My bad

btw: very correct of you to go "he/she". Don't often see that attention to detail on forums!

I caught your "I believe". As far as the, "he/she" goes, I'm not really that PC, but I got called on it once.

I would rather have a M&P, but we got what we got. I say, "he/she"didn't say he/she

This may be true, but the department may still take adverse action against you for doing so.

They may, you are right. But, they should be swiftly spanked for doing so. Consider the following:

Myth – Only LEOs with agency permission can carry off-duty under LEOSA.
• September 2007: Federal corrections officer prosecuted on disciplinary charges by the Bureau of Prisons for carrying a handgun off-duty without permission and for misusing his agency identification. Administrative Judge dismissed both charges. Court found that the officer did not need agency approval to carry under LEOSA. It also found that the officer only used the identification, but not to secure privileges unavailable to the general public. (Davis v. Dept of Justice, 2007 Merit System Protection Board Lexis 5609)
• Representative Scott proposed a provision that LEOSA shall not be construed to supersede or limit the rules, regulations, policies, or practices of any State or local law enforcement agency. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 11 yeas to 21 nays. (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong, 2nd Sess. 2004 p. 7)
• An officer trained only to use a firearm in a correctional setting but not trained to carry one on-duty, and not allowed to carry off-duty, is still covered by LEOSA if they meet all requirements of LEOSA. (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2004 p. 58)
• “The protection provided by LEOSA is simply not reduced or eliminated because an otherwise qualified officer fails to obtain permission from his department to use the weapon; (People v. Drew Peterson)
• CA DOJ says, “On-duty restrictions placed by the department appear to be permissible. Off-duty restrictions appear to be superceded by this Act.” http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/leosiss.pdf

__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel

I really don't mind the 4006 TSW. That being said, I would entertain another option, which if we went with something different I could see it being a m&p. I would really enjoy moving up to 45ACP though, but the 4006 is a nice firearm for the interim.

They may, you are right. But, they should be swiftly spanked for doing so. Consider the following:

Myth  Only LEOs with agency permission can carry off-duty under LEOSA.
 September 2007: Federal corrections officer prosecuted on disciplinary charges by the Bureau of Prisons for carrying a handgun off-duty without permission and for misusing his agency identification. Administrative Judge dismissed both charges. Court found that the officer did not need agency approval to carry under LEOSA. It also found that the officer only used the identification, but not to secure privileges unavailable to the general public. (Davis v. Dept of Justice, 2007 Merit System Protection Board Lexis 5609)
 Representative Scott proposed a provision that LEOSA shall not be construed to supersede or limit the rules, regulations, policies, or practices of any State or local law enforcement agency. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 11 yeas to 21 nays. (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong, 2nd Sess. 2004 p. 7)
 An officer trained only to use a firearm in a correctional setting but not trained to carry one on-duty, and not allowed to carry off-duty, is still covered by LEOSA if they meet all requirements of LEOSA. (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2004 p. 58)
 The protection provided by LEOSA is simply not reduced or eliminated because an otherwise qualified officer fails to obtain permission from his department to use the weapon; (People v. Drew Peterson)
 CA DOJ says, On-duty restrictions placed by the department appear to be permissible. Off-duty restrictions appear to be superceded by this Act. http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/leosiss.pdf

Would be nice, but I don't know of many guys willing to set outside of P&P and risk an off-duty OIS with an "unauthorized" carry. Just the thought of being hung out to dry even temporarily isn't a fight most are willing to take. It's easier to follow P&P, and most departments have an amicable list to choose from so that most everyone is happy.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by starsnuffer

It's an HK, I could lube it with sand and superglue and it'd work just fine.

Would be nice, but I don't know of many guys willing to set outside of P&P and risk an off-duty OIS with an "unauthorized" carry. Just the thought of being hung out to dry even temporarily isn't a fight most are willing to take. It's easier to follow P&P, and most departments have an amicable list to choose from so that most everyone is happy.

I hear you. I can't wait until a precedent setting decision takes place in CA so agencies stop trying to control something they have no legal right to control anymore.

__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel

Yup - and man, I am jealous. I've spent a lot of time in the area and always hear cars screeching around the track, full auto fire, and handgun fire at their range. They're spending MY tax dollars on fun stuff. I'm envious!!

Yup - and man, I am jealous. I've spent a lot of time in the area and always hear cars screeching around the track, full auto fire, and handgun fire at their range. They're spending MY tax dollars on fun stuff. I'm envious!!

Turby

Used to do National Guard things at a site just across the fence from the Academy.

One summer night, watched the instructors teach the students why they should be careful with traffic stops: Student-CHP car pulls over instructor car; students do all the usual things OK, I guess; student says 'open the trunk' and walks back there; trunk opens, another instructor comes out shooting (blanks).

I know its legalese but , I dont see where the LEOSA implies that you can carry anything you want off duty. I think it means you can carry off duty if you want, regardless of dept regulations.
The first section on the DOJ's info says, an officer is still subject to Dept's policies and conditions of employment , and that the Dept can set the policies for qualification.
So if the gun isnt allowed/approved by your Dept ,how can you qualify or be qualified with it, and remain within Dept policy .
The biggest factor, like stated before, is no, or little backing if your weapon is outside policy. Although the Dept would probably still defend you because of their deep pocket problem, and within scope or not.
Again most have more than adequate weapons approved anyway. IMO.

My department still issues the Beretta 92FS, but is slowly transitioning to the M&P 9mm. To the department's credit, there is an array of other approved on duty weapons available to use, at the officer's own expense of course.

good thing I said "I believe" at the end of my sentence so I left room for being wrong, haha. I could have sworn he said either an M&P or a S&W that is specifically a CHP model.... must be mistooooken! My bad

btw: very correct of you to go "he/she". Don't often see that attention to detail on forums!

Just miss understood. The gun the CHP uses is made by S&W, but just not the M&P. He might have used his personal M&P to train on his own before entering the academy. A lot of people get professional training before deciding to become a police officer. So who knows what was said or what your buddy meant.

The he/she while politically correct is actually bad english (not that I am a grammar nazi as I screw up all the time). Back in the 90s the Army was pushing the use of "he/she" and "sir/mam" when gender is unknown, such as when answering a phone or describing a suspect. Oddly enough the Air Force stressed that it not be used, at least by the time I joined.

They can ask and you can comply if you wish. But, you don't have to. LEOSA made it so you don't need agency permission to carry any semi auto firearm when you are off duty...whether they like it or not.

I don't understand.....

I work the range . We have a list of firearms that we can carry ON DUTY and OFF DUTY. We also need to qualify with EVERY handgun we carry ON or OFF.

Due to the passage of LEOSA, it is irrelevant what your policy says regarding off-duty carry. A qualified LEO who qualifies with A duty gun can carry ANY off-duty gun, other than a machine gun. Refer to the following:

Myth  Only LEOs with agency permission can carry off-duty under LEOSA.
 September 2007: Federal corrections officer prosecuted on disciplinary charges by the Bureau of Prisons for carrying a handgun off-duty without permission and for misusing his agency identification. Administrative Judge dismissed both charges. Court found that the officer did not need agency approval to carry under LEOSA. It also found that the officer only used the identification, but not to secure privileges unavailable to the general public. (Davis v. Dept of Justice, 2007 Merit System Protection Board Lexis 5609)
 During LEOSA drafting, Representative Scott proposed a provision that LEOSA shall not be construed to supersede or limit the rules, regulations, policies, or practices of any State or local law enforcement agency. This amendment was defeated by a vote of 11 yeas to 21 nays. (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong, 2nd Sess. 2004 p. 7)
 An officer trained only to use a firearm in a correctional setting but not trained to carry one on-duty, and not allowed to carry off-duty, is still covered by LEOSA if they meet all requirements of LEOSA. (H.R. Rep. No. 560, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2004 p. 58)
 The protection provided by LEOSA is simply not reduced or eliminated because an otherwise qualified officer fails to obtain permission from his department to use the weapon." (People v. Drew Peterson)
 CA DOJ says, On-duty restrictions placed by the department appear to be permissible. Off-duty restrictions appear to be superceded by this Act. http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/leosiss.pdf
__________________

__________________
"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."
-- Sir Robert Peel